MechPilot524

Found this thread and just tested StaticObject:getVelocity() and StaticObject:inAir. Made a simple Trigger outText to dump the boolean from inAir() and the three vector components from getVelocity(). It seems StaticObject:inAir() is still returning false on airborne hooked cargo. On the bright side, at least I'm getting values for StaticObject:getVelocity(). I used some very basic testing methodology; for the 2nd screenshot I ran the vec3 for each container through Wolfram Alpha, converted the calculated Length to knots true as I'm pretty sure velocity vec3 is in m/s, and compared them to the speeds found in the unit info box. Bear in mind that of course the Observed speeds are being rounded (or truncated - I don't know) to the nearest whole knot, and also this test has shortcomings: since I was lazy and popped the debug using an F10 Radio button I have to execute the function while unpaused and then pause as soon as the info appears on screen. Cargo 1 vec3: {6.711033821106, 10.801515579224, -49.643314361572} | length 51.246 m/s = 99.614 ktas | observed 95ktas Cargo 2 vec3: {5.7932195663452, -4.5976705551147, -48.696201324463} | length 49.2546 m/s = 95.743 ktas | observed 96ktas Cargo 3 vec3: {2.1294958591461, -3.4184143543243, -58.323574066162} | length 58.4624 m/s = 113.642 ktas | observed 114ktas An edge case and possible explanation for the significant deviation on Cargo 1 would be it had begun decelerating at the edge of a swing when the function dumped the vec3 and had lost 4-5kts velocity when I hit Pause. AI helicopters carrying sling loads are crazy, I've cranked up the mass on these boxes to simulate the weight of an LAV-25 and sometimes they will do a full loop over the helicopter and through the rotor blades. More importantly, this test scenario involved the AI CH-53s dropping off these boxes. Screenshot 3 shows the box on the ground with its velocity values zeroed out! So that would mean now we can at least use the velocity to check when these things are not sling loaded. Maybe this was noted in a patch? If so I never found/noticed it over the past year or two - but to anyone else who came across this thread and was initially disheartened, fear not, it looks like the velocities do work and can be used to determine when the box comes to rest.

Yes, I do agree that improving what we have modeled for existing SAM systems is helpful. Even in satellite imagery the Tall King is an unmistakable system. I also think though that having it, even if incorrect or incomplete, is still better than nothing at all; and the level of detail or historical accuracy to this degree would be lost on too many players for it to be considered priority. I also agree that BLUFOR lacks the sort of thing that would harness a TBM mission; we could really use an equivalent to the Scud. Although in a more fictional scenario we could watch S-300Vs pick off Scuds, more attention should be paid to both factions having comparable capabilities as they existed so as not to leave gaps. I don't read Cyrillic, so I'm relying on Google Translate for this one... They're saying the "S-300B", which presumably refers to S-300V when romanized, is desired but not planned?

The SA-11 in DCS World is unique for one reason above all else, in my opinion: it is essentially a Medium-Range SAM that incorporates TELARs. All other Medium-Range SAMs are static (eg HAWK, SA-2) and the SA-6 leans closer to being a Tactical SAM and still uses TELs guided by the STRAIGHT FLUSH anyway. As a mission creator, I would also appreciate having a SAM available that is higher capability than an SA-11, but can still redeploy. Many DCS players are familiar with the SA-10, the S-300PS. However, many may not have heard of a project which arose in tandem for the Soviet Army: the S-300V. I myself had not heard of it until I downloaded the High Digit SAMs mod some time ago. Background Whereas the S-300P met the requirements of the Soviet air defense forces, which only specified faster deployment than the SA-2 in contrast to other requirements with respect to missile tracking and performance, the Soviet army wanted a system that was CBRN-resistant, mounted on treads, and capable of engaging ballistic missiles as well as maneuvering aircraft. They also wanted the S-300 to achieve similar deployment times to the SA-6, being ready for action minutes after coming to a halt. As the Army's requirements differed most significantly from those of the Air Defense Forces and Navy, the S-300V was born: though arising from the same concept and being of the same generation as the SA-10, I think it's accurate to consider the S-300V/SA-12 to be a different beast entirely. The S-300V, and its Chinese counterpart HQ-18, are in service with a handful of countries today including Russia, China, Pakistan, Ukraine, and Iran, with Russian S-300Vs seeing service in Syria. Russia, Egypt and Venezuela use the S-300VM (SA-23), an upgraded version. Left to Right: GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT TELAR, GRILL SCREEN Radar Implementation into DCS I wish to see all elements of a standard SA-12 battery incorporated: the command vehicle, both GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARS, and all three radar types: GRILL PAN for target tracking and designation, BILL BOARD for general search, and HIGH SCREEN to improve capability against ballistic missiles. The multiple radars is for similar reasons as to why we have BIG BIRD, CLAM SHELL, and TIN SHIELD all available for the DCS SA-10; each have their own specialization and mission creators can set the battery's capabilities in part by incorporating various radars into the system. As these missiles likely have long reload times, I would also like to see the Loader-Launcher vehicles present and perhaps their presence would boost the rearm speed of adjacent TELARs either in or out of their group. The Loader-Launchers could also act as TELs, firing with the assistance of nearby TELARs. There are many SAMs in DCS which would have them but don't - it is unprecedented, and could be perceived as less important for the sake of DCS, so I recognize that as a stretch. The GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARs guide their own missiles to the target semi-actively via the illuminators atop the masts. They receive support from another radar to receive target designations, so a command vehicle and a single radar such as GRILL PAN can orchestrate an engagement against several targets by designating different targets to different TELARs. In turn, the BILL BOARD acts similarly to a BIG BIRD giving large scan volume at the regiment level; and the HIGH SCREEN will focus on ballistic missiles. Some sources say the TELARS cannot engage targets without the GRILL PAN, others say they can; I imagine a DCS incarnation would allow them to but with difficulty, and this behavior is already present on other SAMs in DCS. The range of GLADIATOR is about 35nmi and GIANT about 50nmi. The reality is probably more blurry than that, but nevertheless in DCS it could boast a range greater than older systems such as SA-2 or smaller contemporaries such as SA-11. Its range is said to be roughly on par with the SA-10, although its usage of semi-active missile guidance instead of PESA (as found on FLAP LID) might still manifest some important differences in DCS. Although it was developed with a higher focus on the anti-ballistic missile role than the S-300P was initially, the SA-12 is certainly still very capable against aircraft. Left to Right: HIGH SCREEN ATBM Radar, BILL BOARD Search Radar, GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT loader-launcher, GRILL PAN Engagement Radar Benefits of Adding the SA-12 to DCS I enjoy the SA-12 featured in the High Digit SAMs mod, but that is a mod. I think there is still significant benefit for the SA-12 being added to the base game, particularly for environments which do not use mods. Having a fourth option for a "long range SAM", with different typical deployments and setups than SA-10, SA-5 and Patriot, would make this SAM unique among the others currently in DCS. In particular, mission editors could tune the system's ability to engage objects at various ranges by adjusting how many GIANT TELARs are in a group. It is also of similar era to the SA-10 and SA-11 so would fit in well for the setting. I could see the SA-12 being of interest due to the new "ARM Evasion" behavior, as this battery could relocate when threatened. In the future Dynamic Campaign, SA-12s would be of interest as they could easily relocate based on the movement of the front lines, and I have no doubt that mission creators could use a relatively mobile strategic SAM system today. While SA-10s could be set up to do this (I believe Eagle Dynamics has said that is the intent for S-300P?) the SA-12 is certainly more oriented to this sort of action, capable of relocating more quickly than an SA-10, and would cover a larger area than the SA-11. Being a tracked system rather than a wheeled system, it can also appear in more austere locations. Lastly, it has been some time since a new SAM was added to the DCS core game - about two years since the SA-5 was added. We've only seen the FIRE CAN + KS-19, technicals with ZU-23-2s, and LPWS C-RAM added since then, and a facelift for the SA-10. All are lovely additions but not as impactful as a new SAM system to fly against. So I think the community would enjoy having a new type of SAM. A GLADIATOR TELAR in the field, in the process of deploying its canisters and radar. Shout-out to Militavia who recently made an excellent video about the origins of the S-300P family and mentioned the S-300V branching from the main S-300 project. So, please consider adding the SA-12 GLADIATOR and GIANT to the DCS Core! Video of the S-300VM during a live-fire exercise: